I love Tolkien. Anyone who has read my blog knows that I measure the quality of many other books by his standard. Also, I have come to enjoy the great epos Game of Thrones by Martin. When asked to compare both, I just don’t know how to answer. Both universes are quite unique and totally different. I always wanted to compare both, but at the end this turns out to be a futile effort. I hope to show how futile using this comparison in one element that appears in both worlds: the image warfare.

War is almost essential in most fantasy novels. Specially those dedicated to medieval worlds will, at one point play out the confrontation in a full scale battlefield. In Tolkien we find this specially in the battles for Minas Tirith and Helms deep. In Martin almost everywhere, from the battle in King’s Landing, to the “salves uprising”, all the way through the fight Tyrion has to endure at the end of the first book to impress his father.

This is where the first differences start. The attention to detail is different in each author. Even though Tolkien tends to be very descriptive, some parts of the fight remain very vague. Here, we find the efforts of our heroes, as they charge valiantly into battle and kill orcs to the left and the right. In Martin, however, we find that there are a lot of elements that have a part at the same time: mercenaries, knights and their code of conduct, tortures of both sides, etc. In other words, if we compared the series under the standard of realism, leaving magical creatures aside, we would find a much better scene in Martin’s epic.

This is because most of the influences both received when writing. Tolkien, for starters, is a reader of germanic sagas, in which the focus of the battles centers on the heroes: Siegfried, Beowulf and others. Each hero is there because of its grand powers, the abilities it has and, above all, the destiny they have. After all, the sagas are based on the deeds each protagonist has. Back in the time, the germanic tribes believed that those deeds were what marked a person and what made them noteworthy. No commoner could aspire to achieve the recognition the epic heroes had. In Tolkien, those heroes were very clear: Aragorn, Theodén, even the strong Eowyn.

Martin, on the other hand, is part of a generation in which the epicness is overshadowed by realism. There are no real knights in shining armour, and those who believe they are, are overridden by personal flaws and mistakes. At the end, even the great hero dies in the most dire circumstances, not achieving their ideals as they imagined. We also have to remember that Martin, in an interview with Dragon a few years back, spoke for his love of historical roleplaying, in which the consistency of his characters was more important than them surviving a conflict. The story of his legionary who had to commit suicide to maintain honour is a good example for that. Thus, the common people appear alongside the “terrible” mercenaries and the squires aspiring to get a position in court.

This would bring into question the appearance of the hobbits in the grand scheme of things. For Tolkien, the hobbits were the representation of the common people, who sometimes would be even stronger than an epic hero. But then again, those few who appear tended to be the ones charged with a greater destiny: Frodo carrying the Ring to Mount Doom with Sam as his aid, Merry and Pippin destined to become leaders of their people. The closest moment of common people without a destiny fighting was when the Shire rebelled to the forces of Sharky.

In Martin, instead, we have many times less than inspiring moments of battle, in which the real heroes are not appreciated and the ones who claimed credit end up seizing all recognition. This gritty reality is the one that drives many of the conflicts in the novels, making it sometimes impossible to declare black and white. While in Tolkien we clearly see who is bad and who is good, in Martin it shifts and it depends on the moments and on our own perspective. There are even times in which the most good-hearted guy destroys more than help.

The Battle at Pellenor Fields, by Alan Lee

And this basic difference is important. In Tolkien we want to enjoy the heroes, not the reality. This escapism, as the author would define it on his essay on faery tales, is a necessary part to understand his works and his characters. Instead, on Martin, we have a reflection on how conflicts are moved and the author attempts to give a full image of what is happening in a convoluted time. Thus, when we approach him, we can not attempt to grasp a defined line, which makes some situation even more surprising than in epic fantasy.

It is not bad to be somewhat predictable. Sometimes we just enjoy a success story, on other days, we have to face the gritty realities that a person can provoke with unwanted actions. But in general, we enjoy our great authors, depending on our tastes and, above all our moods. In any case, I recommend a back to back reading of those two series, which for me are classics without any doubt.

As a side note, I do recommend anyone interested in real medieval warfare to read George R.R. Martin. It is a pretty accurate description of Europe around the XIII century.

When we think knights, we usually think one of the following two things: either the man that shines in the sun and raises his sword as a preferred weapon, or one that just rapes women and burns villages, dirty and stinky. The truth is, it is a bit more complicated. Knighthood is one of the western world’s illusions, a factor that pretty much defines how we see honor and justice.

Modern rendition of a frankish warrior.

So, where is the origin of this incredibly overrated strike force? Historians can go back as far as to roman ages, but to make it short, I will just summarize their creation: warriors of germanic tribes that “invaded” Rome took over the role of rulers with some latin elements, justifying their position of leadership with the use of brute strength. Back in the early Middle Ages, people were in dire need of securing their lands and lives from constant outbursts of violence, be it by another religion, another tribe or even a neighbor. The only way to control this was with the use of weapons.

This made the main and leading warrior force, the one with the resources to get a heavy armor, the most important element in an army… at least namely. Although foot soldiers were still the backbone of every well-rounded army, mostly common folk they could force and trick to fight, the chevaliers were the leaders, specialized and highly trained in warfare. Their main tactic was to scare the commoners by charging into them with clanking armors and loudly neighing horses. You can try to imagine it: a ton of meat and flesh running into you while you hold a wooden lance or a small axe you usually use to cut wood.

Obviously this was accompanied by a lot of propaganda. Knights started to extol themselves, first singing and writing poems, then with help of writing clerics they paid they created the grand legends we today read and make movies of: King Arthur, the Round Table and Tristan and Isolde, between many others.

Figurine of a knight as they may have looked during the crusades.

The key word here is also “clerics”. The rules that we know as the ethic code of chivalry comes from the idea of the Holy Christian Church when they tried to give the mounted warriors a direction for the good of Christendom. Honor the ladies, defend the religion and be brave and honorable is the result of a mix of pagan custom and the head of faith in medieval Europe. But then, the reality clashed for hundreds of years against the ideal.

In an effort to educate the perfect moral warriors, the image was enforced as good as possible. But as in any other thing the humans do, there was a mixed picture of the application of the ideal. I recommend to read and watch the story written by George R.R. Martin, Game of Thrones to create an idea of the situation. Some knights tried to follow the rules to be stronger through their heightened ethics, while others applied the rules only to their convenience.

Map of the Battle of Courtrai in 1302.

Much stronger became the conflict by the end of the Middle Ages. Many historians mark the battle at Courtrai, in the Netherlands, as the end of the Age of Cavalry. There the french knights charged almost blindly into a tightly formed line of burghers and common folk. The rebels who had dared to oppose the french warriors also used a swamp as protection of the flank and hundreds of traps prepared for horsemen. You can imagine the result: the whole battle was won by the line of footmen.

I myself tend to disagree on that. After some investigation I have come to the conclusion that knighthood in itself was mostly an illusion. The best way to employ a formation of chevaliers was to finish off an enemy in a last stampede or to attack a morally weak line of defense. Psychology was its main form offense. Even though the warriors were highly trained, they were mostly only employed when needed or when a certain victory was ahead.

There were hundreds of techniques they could use, mostly charging in circles and throwing lances before the final blow. But the tactics finally ended up being just a charge at full speed at the enemy. Thus the usefulness for the elite force of the knights became limited and gradually unimportant. Instead a new way was found to fill the ranks: common men without jobs that were open to kill for some money. Even though mercenaries were nothing new, in the latter centuries of the Middle Ages they became more and more popular; the Church wrote interdict after interdict against them and never got to something.

A representation of knights after a combat manual of the XVth century; the manual is told to be written by Hans Talhoffer by the Middle Ages.

Now, mix in the noble’s “love” of death. I think most of the nobles started retiring into government positions as the national states became centralized and replaced the feudal kingdoms. Those who still thought being a knight was the best died in the hands of the soldiers that were hired en masse, armed with guns, the new invention that revolutionized the war. Instead, the heavy cavalry became the focus of sports: the tourney became even more popular by the XVth century for a reason.

This may only be an outline of what the real being of a knight was in the Middle Ages. But it lets us glimpse on a group that weas nothing else but people who tried to better they reputation with help of another power group. But in the end they were nothing else more than humans who tried to keep the power their ancestors had won by force. Also, they influenced and maybe even inspired one of the most important styles of writing: heroic adventures. And are we not happy for that today when we read our favourite fantasy novels?

Hope you liked this little long post, but this is the first one in my historic series of posts. Hope you enjoy it!

Ah, yes! Vampirism. Since the dawn of mankind it has drawn our interests. We always talk about different kinds of bloodsuckers; each author and culture, at least in the history of mythology and literature, have taken a different perspective. I must admit it: I love them too. There is something in that creature that always spikes our interest.

This has come with its obvious drawbacks. Whoever dared to read or watch the Twilight Saga has experienced the dread of the shiny son of Dracula mating with a disco ball. Countless times this approach has been criticized but, as a matter of fact, it is now here to stay. All we can do now is hope for its gradual fading into oblivion.

The nature of a vampire is not as easy to play with as many a reader might think. I could lecture you (maybe one day I might) on what this pseudo-lord-of-the-night Edward is, but as far as it goes, the tag the character wears is not deserved. Changing the vampire myth, after all, has become a daunting task, specially since Anne Rice kinda set ground on modern literature bloodsucker.

This obviously does not mean no one can try anymore. Bram Stoker had already done his bit and it took a while to “dethrone” (I use the term very lightly) him from his spot as a classic (anyone remembers Nosferatu?). George Martin, more known for his Game of Thrones series, has nonetheless made the attempt. And, as I would describe it, an interesting interpretation of the favourite horror creature of all times.

Set in the area of New Orleans and the rivers, a pale, rich man with strange sleeping habits decides to create a boat to invite people with the same strange way of life to travel with him. Little known to the captain of that beautiful steamboat, he is a bloodsucker with a revolutionary invention bound to change the destiny of inter-species relationships. And, little known to the inventor, another one of his race, more ancient, is bound to stop him and shatter the dreams of unification.

Right off the bat: the imagery is enchanting.If there is something G.R.R. Martin is a master of, it is the descriptions. The story takes place in an USA just before the Civil War, and it is incredibly well researched and worked. Here we see how the relationship slave-master was really like, and how the trade on the Mississippi and other rivers flourished to a degree that we sometimes fail to imagine. Plantations, cities on the river and, why not, the steamboats themselves fill up our imagination with a daunting and attractive imagery that makes justice to the author’s abilities.

The story in itself is not bad. It is interesting how the writer explains his versions of vampires, which, as you will read, is a different take from the undead prototype. It suffers of one of those terrible cut endings, in which, as soon as the “villain” dies, it ends with a very cryptic epigraph. Not an open ending, but just a total narrative shutdown, which I have come to dislike. I really hope this does not happen to Game of Thrones!

As far as the vampires go, I think they are very well portrayed. Mind you, they are not as good as Rice’s, but the effort of imagining them is very much appreciated. It sometimes gets enthralling when the author approaches to their way of thinking. Psychology and philosophy are the main traits of this book. I really think Martin captured and old discussion very well in an imaginative way, giving the reader some food for his thought.

But, is it for everyone? I highly doubt it. It is not the description that bothers me, neither the exact historical terms Martin uses throughout his novel. It is his new idea of what a vampire is. Although interesting, I had the feeling that it was still not quite right. He may have failed at showing a new one, but at least he fared much better than Meyer. My recommendation is that only the real fans of the bloody undead should read it, or maybe even those who like stories with complicated moral choices and unusual story progression. And those who love historical novels. I think it may confuse some people on how the vampires are treated, and I definitely think it was a good take, but it just did not “feel right”. In my personal opinion, though, I liked it.

Well then, I see you next time, as always, this time I think I may release a series I have been working on since last week. Let us see how the writing progresses there!

Last Ending the Story I had first analyzed the ending of the popular The Lord of the Rings to see why this apparent extra piece of story actually completes and explains the whole story. This analysis was started because of my reluctance to accept the seventh book of the Harry Potter series as a conclusion to the series; or at least as an adequate one. But we also have to face that not all books finish the same way LotR does… otherwise we would really see no real variation on stories, at least in their structures.

Part 2

But wait! There is more…

Affirming that Tolkien had the best ending ever is most probably an overstatement. I would say that the book has the perfect ending to what had been proposed for so many pages. This closes the story arc in a perfect manner, avoiding thus this uncomfortable feeling that there could be more. After all, the whole trilogy is based around the closing of an era, so every part of it must find the closure. As we see, if there would have been an open ending, the story may have felt utterly incomplete.

There is the famous open ending as an alternative, but this one is to be used with great care. Let use for this case two examples, starting with G.R.R. Martin’s now famous Game of Thrones series. “But why?” you may ask yourself, “There are still two more books missing!” That’s the point!

The open ending in an ongoing series has a central use for the advancement of the story: you are kept in expectance, excited of what may happen in the next book, making you want to read the next part. When Arya, just after the death of his father Eddard Stark, is suddenly pulled away from the mob to be taken elsewhere, you can’t keep but wonder what is in store for her in the next book. And this is just one example of the multiple cliffhangers that Martin, in his excellent narrative, leaves for us the reader to wonder on. This is obviously not created to give an end to the whole situation… it just feeds us partial information so we can not do anything else but guess what may happen the next book.

Or just leaving room for more…

The one open ending I want to focus on, though, is more like the ones we find in some of the novels of Anne Rice. Let us for example my favorite novel in the “Vampire Chronicles”: Memnoch the Devil. Although it goes way off what happens in the first three books of the chronicles, I think that the tale is quite interesting and different from the typical blood-story that is a normal topic in any vampire story.

But going back on topic, this particular book ends with the discovery of Veronica’s veil, Lestat entering in a catatonic state and some vampires killing themselves under the sun in public. I know it sounds weird, but let us analyze a bit further: the whole travel with Memnoch is a travel of knowledge and selfdiscovery. The main point is to find faith again in a world and life that seems not only endless, but hopeless. For Lestat, this means to confront the very basis of humanity. The whole trip through time, space and dimensions ends up revealing one of the articles of faith, which changes the people around the beloved vampire of the “Vampire Chronicles”. The catatonic state he slips into is nothing more but an end to his own series and the beginning of all other books that appeared afterwards. The other vampires win their position in the central stage. Honestly, not much of my liking, but for fans a golden opportunity.

This closes a cycle, but clearly opens a new one. This leaves room to the reader to imagine whatever may happen. The new faith found by the vampires leaves a hole in the story, but also gives us the chance to imagine how we can imagine a society in which society shares places with their monsters, even with them in religious fervor, a thing we should not be able to share. In this case information is left unsaid deliberately, because it invites to a new adventure. But deep into the story there is a closure, although maybe one that we did not want.

On to the master of horror

Another great example of an open ending is H.P. Lovecraft. One of my absolute favorite authors, you may have noticed that if you read his short stories, rarely leaves one concluded. This open ending is maybe even bolder, since in reality all we do is understand the madness of the character, but never to see an end to the cosmic horror that lurches behind the curtains of the cosmos. Let’s take as an example “The Shadow Over Innsmouth”. The whole investigation the main character is more or less forced in finds an ending when it stops an unholy rite and the spreading of an race. At the same time, he discovers that he is part of that destroyed race and plans to join the survivors to start the plans of world domination again. Same goes for the classic “Call of Cthulhu”. Even though the sailors defeated the Elder God, the cult still kills the investigator for discovering parts of the truth… leaving the sense of doom lingering.

Both examples are typical of Lovecraft’s writing, and give a perfect example of an open ending as it should be written. The reader himself is called to imagine his own rest of the story, of what lingers and what the investigator has not discovered yet. This is why this author’s style was copied so much and whit much success: all the other writers expanded that mysterious universe and gave it even more exciting cases to follow. We could even say that this expanded universe is a typical example of what more or less goes through a reader’s head in a good ending with possibilities left open.

A second short conclusion

This time we explored the open ending a little bit. We have to accept that not all stories can have a perfect closure as the one Tolkien wrote over fifty years ago. But even the open conclusion leaves us with a little closure, even though not perfect. But instead of leaving us wanting, it permits us to participate in the story, even though it is only us. These endings make us imagine possibilities and lets us be part of the creation, in one way or another. If there is no final conclusion, at least it gives us the elements enough to enjoy the book or tale further than anticipated.

Also, on a review on the recent Prometheus movie, Chris Stuckman reminds us that sometimes it is good to leave some questions open, to be asked about what we think and what we imagine of a story. If you close up a story correctly and leave some answers open correctly, you may create even further excitement… or even wild new stories!

But at the same time, the open ending is a terrible weapon. If the door is left too open, it can create a great hole in a reader, leaving us wanting for more… better said, demanding more, instead of participating in the ending.

Next time we will wrap up the whole discussion and finally give an answer to why Harry Potter fails on his last book and on how we can imagine an, at least, adequate ending to a fantasy series. Until then, may the gods guide you!

May they smile upon your way!

Posts navigation

Search for:

Welcome to a blog of gaming, movies, books and some history. In here I explore the stories that have carried us over decades, yes, even centuries, to what defines us today. I hope you enjoy it and comment, I am always open to respond!
This blog is updated whenever possible, once a week.